ABSTRACT

This paper develops and tests a new self-assessment policy tool that illuminates the quality of planning policy for green infrastructure (GI). Working with 19 local planning authorities within the UK Central Scotland Green Network area (CSGN), the multi-functional coverage and strength of GI policies in statutory development plans were assessed. The tool was built from fusing two existing but unrelated initiatives addressing GI standards; Building with Nature and Integrating Green Infrastructure (IGI). The results reveal surprising variation across the functional coverage of GI-related policy and strength of associated policy wording, suggesting a significant vulnerability for how GI is mainstreamed in decision-making processes. To address this knowledge exchange deficit, the best performing policies were captured and adapted to inform a suite of model policies with global application. Significantly, the policies champion the different functions performed by GI and stress the need for early and ongoing involvement throughout any development process with funding for long-term stewardship post-development. The results serve as a catalyst for improved dialogue and social learning across planning, and wider built/natural environment teams and professions to plug identified policy gaps. In particular, there is recognition of the need for planning policy responses to move outside their usual environmental remit and engage with other policy sectors using more holistic policy hooks such as placemaking, placekeeping and the climate emergency. We argue that this tool has universal applicability in many planning systems for improving the policy response and imperative for GI, thereby increasing the potential for better spatial planning delivery.

摘要

本文开发并测试了一种新的自我评估政策工具，该工具阐明了绿色基础设施（GI）规划政策的质量。与英国中央苏格兰绿色网络区域（CSGN）内的19个地方规划机构合作，评估了法定发展计划中地理标志政策的多功能性和优势。该工具是通过融合两个现有但不相关的解决地理标志标准的举措而构建的；与自然共建并整合绿色基础设施（IGI）。结果表明，地理标志相关政策的功能覆盖范围和相关政策措辞的强度出乎意料的变化，这表明地理标志如何在决策流程中主流化存在重大漏洞。为了解决这种知识交流不足的问题，捕获性能最佳的策略，并将其调整为可在全球范围内应用的一组模型策略。重要的是，这些政策支持GI行使的不同职能，并强调需要在开发过程中长期投入资金，并在整个开发过程中尽早并持续参与。结果将促进整个计划中对话和社会学习的改进，并扩大建筑/自然环境团队和专业人士，以填补已确定的政策差距。特别是，人们认识到有必要计划政策应对措施，以使其脱离通常的环境职权范围，并使用更全面的政策挂钩（例如场所，位置管理和气候紧急情况）与其他政策部门互动。